[T]his [rural voters poll showing Iraq breaking the GOP strength with rural voters] cuts directly against the conventional wisdom that is spewed inside the Washington Beltway. As just one example, let's remember pollster Fred Yang, who said that Democrats' recent move to give President Bush a blank check for his Iraq policy was "obviously a good move" - yet according to the actual data, it was only "obviously a good move" if Democrats' goal was to alienate voters. . . . Let's hope this new poll breaks through the Beltway echo chamber - and gets Democratic politicians to stop listening to their insulated, cliche-driven consultants who play into the Fox News meme of "supporting the war means you are strong on national security" - a meme that most Americans do not believe. And let's hope that those Democrats who have been trying to end the war are seen for what they really are: Heroes who are not only trying to stop a destructive foreign policy, but also doing what needs to be done to strengthen the Democratic majority in Congress.

Back in February I wrote:

[N]ow Dems control the Congress, and this approach will no longer work. For in 2008, the American People will PROPERLY ask 'what did the Dems do to end the Iraq Debacle?

Via Greg Sargent, Stu Rothenberg writes [How ironic.]:

Democrats are trying so hard to avoid allowing Republicans to label their criticism as merely partisan that they won't even acknowledge the obvious. Instead, they are looking for any opportunity to portray their opposition to the President's policies as part of the nation's dissatisfaction with the administration's Iraq policy.

While that's understandable - one of the few ways Democrats could screw up during the next year and a half would be to appear to be basing their opposition on possible political gain and a petty desire to punish Bush politically - there is no indication that Democrats have been too aggressive in criticizing the President or his policies so far.

In fact, a partisan division over the war probably would help Democrats by further damaging the Republicans between now and next year's Presidential election. After all, if it isn't merely President Bush, but also his entire party, that supports the war and ignores public opinion, Democrats would seem to benefit.

[(Emphasis supplied.)]

This is right and wrong. Certainly pinning Bush on the GOP helps the Democrats, but political grandstanding alone will not cut it for the Dems now. They control the Congress. They can end the Iraq Debacle. And if they do not, the GOP will try and neuter them on Iraq by saying they did not - Dems were all partisan bluster and no action. And the GOP would be right.

As Greg Sargent points out, Dems hold a 20 point polling edge on Bush on Iraq, 54-34. But if Dems do not do anything about ending the Iraq Debacle, then why SHOULD the American People trust Democrats on Iraq?

And now we come to some practical realities - the Congress can only end the Iraq Debacle by NOT FUNDING IT. It may scare some people to say those words - I think it is an unfounded fear as I have explained many times. But let me give them a political scenario that is scarier -- come 2008 -- when faced with the question "What did a Democratic Congress do to end the Iraq Debacle?", when the answer is nothing, what do you think the voters are going to say?

Spineless Dems ALWAYS lose. Always.

I still think that. More than ever.